commentary of Jaimini Sutra - Beginning

> http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

Jaimini

> Sutra - Beginning.pdf

>

> Link -2

> --------

> (140 KB).

>

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

June 10, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of the same

is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he wanted

to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to support

your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th house

argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that name of

Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally incorrect.

Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas, though

right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating on what

was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would have

referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of telling

" horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to other

texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and through whose

lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of Jyotish

received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named amongst

Pravartakas.

Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am commenting on

the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the venerated

Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

Neelakantha interprets it that way.

The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas appearing in BPHS

elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it is based

on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at first

glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas that

explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note that though

Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any thing

that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is found in that

text.

" ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from Vriddha

Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be referred to to

understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any water.

One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti appear in

BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from other

granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are given in

BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not having

the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that only 4 out

of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to Jaimini

and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your argument. even

this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to explain

as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini ignores

totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on only what

Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important amongst

dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about there not

being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara, on the

face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas that are

given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini refers one

to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored in the

argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity and not

even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation. One has

to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

standard texts.

The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting. can you

give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka and

adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean that

neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of the

argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or casting

argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into consideration for

giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

amplifying the concept of argalas.

I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi chakra

and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects. It would

have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as described

by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the sutras fit

th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would have been

interesting to see this.

So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create a PDF

document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the conclusions drawn

there in.

As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear All,

> The following document is a commentary for the beginning portion of

> Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi Drishti and

> Argala.

>

> Link -1

> -------

> Sreenadh/Jaimini

>

> Sutra - Beginning.pdf

>

> Link -2

> --------

> http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf>

> (140 KB).

>

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> ------

>

> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release 6/4/2007 6:43

PM

>

June 10, 2007

Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

Thanks for the comments.

==>

> I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

<==

From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name of Vyasa

in that document! And never argued so!

==>

> How ever the sutras to support

> your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th house

> argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

<==

Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I have

elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that pdf for sure?!

==>

> Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally incorrect.

> Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas,....

<==

Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please post

it in the next mail.

==>

> only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> till date.

<==

That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you pelase

elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra contains

8 adhyaayas?

==>

> Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

<==

Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info, please?

==>

> It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has given rasi

> drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

<==

Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can you say

that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!! One should

think twise before stating so!

==>

> The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

<==

The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf itself, the

edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the same.

==>

> The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of the

> argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have been

> given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

<==

Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is clear that

Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

==>

> I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi

> chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had drawn

> the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis

> described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in

> east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

<==

Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me as

well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight from

the same.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he wanted

> to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to support

> your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th house

> argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that name of

> Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally incorrect.

> Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas, though

> right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating on what

> was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would have

> referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of telling

> " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to other

> texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

> astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and through whose

> lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of Jyotish

> received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named amongst

> Pravartakas.

>

> Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am commenting on

> the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the venerated

> Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

> Neelakantha interprets it that way.

>

> The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas appearing in

BPHS

> elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it is based

> on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at first

> glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas that

> explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note that

though

> Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any thing

> that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is found in

that

> text.

>

> " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from Vriddha

> Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be referred

to to

> understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

> drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

> indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any water.

>

> One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti appear in

> BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from other

> granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are given in

> BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not having

> the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that only 4 out

> of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

>

> Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to Jaimini

> and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your argument. even

> this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to explain

> as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini ignores

> totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on only

what

> Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

> kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important amongst

> dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about there

not

> being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara, on the

> face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas that are

> given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini refers one

> to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored in the

> argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity and not

> even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation. One has

> to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

> standard texts.

>

> The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting. can you

> give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka and

> adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of the

> argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or casting

> argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into consideration for

> giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

> amplifying the concept of argalas.

>

> I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi chakra

> and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects. It

would

> have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as described

> by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the sutras fit

> th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would have been

> interesting to see this.

>

> So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create a PDF

> document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the conclusions drawn

> there in.

>

> As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> > The following document is a commentary for the beginning portion of

> > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi Drishti and

> > Argala.

> >

> > Link -1

> > -------

> >

Sreenadh/Jaimini

> >

> > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> >

> > Link -2

> > --------

> > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf>

> > (140 KB).

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

------

> >

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> >

>

June 10, 2007

Dear Pradeep ji,

Thanks for the comments. All this may help to improve our

understanding of Parasara and Jaimini system (Like me I know that you

are also new to it )

==>

> Now this will raise another doubt - Is Current version of BPHS

> complete?

<==

No - for sure! For example, let us look, just at the Argala system we

discussed. BPHS provides Argala results for signs

2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12 houses, but the same text only provides

slokas to consider Argala combinations for 2-4-5-9-11 only! Even this

clearly indicates that the avilable text is incomplete. I also think

that the same holds true for Jaimini sutra - that too seems to be

incomplete.

The prime thing I felt during this effort studying the concept of

Argala was that, only the combined study of BPHS, Jaimini Sutra and

other available slokas about the same (from commentaries of Jaimini

sutra), unprinted BPHS slokas quoted by such commentaries, together

provided the complete picture. For sure BPHS alone, or Jaimini sutra

alone, would have failed in imparting even this much complete a

picture about the same to me.

Thus I would dare to argue that both BPHS and Jaimini sutra are

incomplete. One need to study them together to have a better

understanding of Parasara's system.

Love,

Sreenadh

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Sreenadh

>

> It was really great to read your PDF ,especially the rashi drishti

> and jaimini sutra part,as it cleared many doubts.Along with

> Chandrashekhar jis diagram,it turned quite useful.

>

> Now i feel as you have proposed ,to Chandrashekhar ji,Jaimini

> Sutras,if they are complete,then it looks like a commentary on

> BPHS.Shri Narasimha Rao has debated many times that Jaimini is not a

> different system,but part of BPHS.I feel he is right.Because without

> BPHS it looks difficult to decode the shlokas,unless the current ones

> are incomplete.For example though ''parshwabhe cha means parashwa

> ones as well'',i didnt suspect as the translation quoted was from

> shri Surya Narain Rao(Except ones on the side).Thus i feel BPHS part

> was considered for complete interpretation.I will wait for

> Chandrashekhar jis views before arriving at conclusions.

>

> Now this will raise another doubt - Is Current version of BPHS

> complete?I remember the debate between shri Finn Wandahl and Shri

> Narasimha Rao.

>

> Will read Argala part and reply later

>

> Thanks again

> Pradeep

>

> , " Sreenadh " <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> > The following document is a commentary for the beginning portion

> of

> > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi Drishti and

> > Argala.

> >

> > Link -1

> > -------

> >

> > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> Jaimini

> > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> >

> > Link -2

> > --------

> > (140 KB).

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

>

June 10, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that Jaimini was

trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat Jaimini was

student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the logic of

Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as advanced by you

becomes even more tenuous.

I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to keep

the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this discussions.

However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure you

that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted therein to

support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from the 4th

bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka then we

may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules. Most of

the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11 houses and

indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw some light

on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka appeared in

the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that his being

Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that gave

the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then Shaunaka

even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of Jyotish,

is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in the mail

received by you?

The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by many

worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other commentators of

Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any reference

that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were written?

If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at large.

Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This is the

reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible you may

have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th sutra of

1st chapter,1st pada.

Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so that is

the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he ignore

the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

Parashara's teaching.

It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of BPHS

you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire document. I

find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read the

relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my comments on

them tomorrow.

I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava. The

results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the houses and

not from the houses.

You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> Thanks for the comments.

> ==>

> > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> <==

> From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name of Vyasa

> in that document! And never argued so!

>

> ==>

> > How ever the sutras to support

> > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th house

> > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> <==

> Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I have

> elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that pdf for sure?!

>

> ==>

> > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally incorrect.

> > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas,....

> <==

> Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please post

> it in the next mail.

>

> ==>

> > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > till date.

> <==

> That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you pelase

> elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra contains

> 8 adhyaayas?

>

> ==>

> > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> <==

> Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info, please?

>

> ==>

> > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has given rasi

> > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> <==

> Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can you say

> that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!! One should

> think twise before stating so!

>

> ==>

> > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> <==

> The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf itself, the

> edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the same.

>

> ==>

> > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of the

> > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have been

> > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> <==

> Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is clear that

> Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

>

> ==>

> > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi

> > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had drawn

> > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis

> > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in

> > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> <==

> Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me as

> well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight from

> the same.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he wanted

> > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to support

> > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th house

> > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that name of

> > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally incorrect.

> > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas, though

> > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating on what

> > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would have

> > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of telling

> > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to other

> > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

> > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and through whose

> > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of Jyotish

> > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named amongst

> > Pravartakas.

> >

> > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am commenting on

> > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the venerated

> > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

> > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> >

> > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas appearing in

> BPHS

> > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it is based

> > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at first

> > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas that

> > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note that

> though

> > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any thing

> > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is found in

> that

> > text.

> >

> > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from Vriddha

> > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be referred

> to to

> > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

> > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

> > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any water.

> >

> > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti appear in

> > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from other

> > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are given in

> > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not having

> > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that only 4 out

> > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> >

> > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to Jaimini

> > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your argument. even

> > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to explain

> > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini ignores

> > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on only

> what

> > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

> > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important amongst

> > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about there

> not

> > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara, on the

> > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas that are

> > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini refers one

> > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored in the

> > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity and not

> > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation. One has

> > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

> > standard texts.

> >

> > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting. can you

> > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka and

> > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of the

> > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or casting

> > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into consideration for

> > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

> > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> >

> > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi chakra

> > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects. It

> would

> > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as described

> > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the sutras fit

> > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would have been

> > interesting to see this.

> >

> > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create a PDF

> > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the conclusions drawn

> > there in.

> >

> > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear All,

> > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning portion of

> > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi Drishti and

> > > Argala.

> > >

> > > Link -1

> > > -------

> > >

> Sreenadh/Jaimini

>

>

> > >

> <Sreenadh/Jaimini

>

> > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > >

> > > Link -2

> > > --------

> > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf>

> > >

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf>>

> > > (140 KB).

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> -------------------------

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > >

> >

June 11, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

> It is believed tat Jaimini was

> student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

<==

This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based on

some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

mentioned in some of my previous mails.

==>

> If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation

> rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2

> and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

<==

The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th; Soola

is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys Argala

yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka speaks

about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further scrutiny

of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

" Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

in 4-2-11 respectively "

The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common thread.

Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same) Vararuchi

is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD. There

is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use even

at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the ancient

past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in use

at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota Sankhya

system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

indicates -

Dara = 24

Bhagya = 12

Soola = 37

How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini sutra,

it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good. In

that case 2 possiblities exists-

* Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

* " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet to

read or study the complete text.

==>

> Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas

> like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> received the principles of Jyotish,

> is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

<==

Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc - but

yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called Sanadan

who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

lasting " i think.

==>

> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of

> Jaimini sutras were written?

> If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

large.

<==

Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

==>

> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

<==

ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

only. When I complete studying though the book - many new revelations

and insights may come to me..

==>

> I mean why should he ignore

> the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> Parashara's teaching.

<==

Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point, while

continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with supporting or

opposing evidance later.

==>

> I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

> The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> houses and not from the houses.

<==

Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by planets

in various houses, then the results told should also be attributed to

the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

==>

> You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

<==

If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

sreesog

Love and Hugs,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

Jaimini was

> trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

Jaimini was

> student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the logic

of

> Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as advanced by

you

> becomes even more tenuous.

>

> I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

keep

> the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

discussions.

> However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

you

> that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted therein to

> support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from the

4th

> bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

then we

> may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

Most of

> the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11 houses

and

> indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw some

light

> on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

>

> I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

appeared in

> the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that his

being

> Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

gave

> the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

Shaunaka

> even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

Jyotish,

> is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in the

mail

> received by you?

>

> The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

many

> worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

commentators of

> Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

reference

> that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

written?

> If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

large.

>

> Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This is

the

> reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

you may

> have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th sutra

of

> 1st chapter,1st pada.

>

> Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so that

is

> the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

ignore

> the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> Parashara's teaching.

>

> It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

BPHS

> you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire document.

I

> find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

the

> relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my comments

on

> them tomorrow.

>

> I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

The

> results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the houses

and

> not from the houses.

>

> You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

>

> I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > Thanks for the comments.

> > ==>

> > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > <==

> > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name of

Vyasa

> > in that document! And never argued so!

> >

> > ==>

> > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

house

> > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > <==

> > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

have

> > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that pdf

for sure?!

> >

> > ==>

> > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

incorrect.

> > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

Pravartakas,....

> > <==

> > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

post

> > it in the next mail.

> >

> > ==>

> > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > till date.

> > <==

> > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you pelase

> > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

contains

> > 8 adhyaayas?

> >

> > ==>

> > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > <==

> > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

please?

> >

> > ==>

> > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has given

rasi

> > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > <==

> > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can you

say

> > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!! One

should

> > think twise before stating so!

> >

> > ==>

> > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > <==

> > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf itself,

the

> > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the same.

> >

> > ==>

> > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

the

> > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

been

> > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > <==

> > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is clear

that

> > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> >

> > ==>

> > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi

> > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

drawn

> > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

drishtis

> > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

Taurus in

> > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > <==

> > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me as

> > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

from

> > the same.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of

the same

> > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he

wanted

> > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

support

> > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

house

> > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that

name of

> > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

incorrect.

> > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas,

though

> > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating

on what

> > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would

have

> > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

telling

> > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to

other

> > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

> > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

through whose

> > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

Jyotish

> > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named

amongst

> > > Pravartakas.

> > >

> > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

commenting on

> > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

venerated

> > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

> > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > >

> > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

appearing in

> > BPHS

> > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it

is based

> > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

first

> > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas

that

> > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

that

> > though

> > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any

thing

> > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

found in

> > that

> > > text.

> > >

> > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from

Vriddha

> > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

referred

> > to to

> > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

> > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

> > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any

water.

> > >

> > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

appear in

> > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from

other

> > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

given in

> > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not

having

> > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

only 4 out

> > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > >

> > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

Jaimini

> > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

argument. even

> > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to

explain

> > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

ignores

> > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on

only

> > what

> > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

> > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important

amongst

> > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about

there

> > not

> > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara,

on the

> > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

that are

> > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

refers one

> > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored

in the

> > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity

and not

> > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation.

One has

> > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

> > > standard texts.

> > >

> > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

can you

> > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka

and

> > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

that

> > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

the

> > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

casting

> > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

consideration for

> > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

> > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > >

> > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

rasi chakra

> > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects.

It

> > would

> > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as

described

> > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

sutras fit

> > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

have been

> > > interesting to see this.

> > >

> > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create

a PDF

> > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

conclusions drawn

> > > there in.

> > >

> > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

portion of

> > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

Drishti and

> > > > Argala.

> > > >

> > > > Link -1

> > > > -------

> > > >

> >

Jaimini

> >

/Jaimini>

> >

> > > >

> >

/Jaimini

> >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

/Jaimini>>

> > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > >

> > > > Link -2

> > > > --------

> > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf

_Beginning.pdf>

> > > >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > (140 KB).

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > -------------------------

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > >

> > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think about the

time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to Maitreya.

********

I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned. Even

if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to be

used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably Shoola

with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the 11th

bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of advancing

an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as you

say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he says

blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your interpretation

of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

*******************

You wrote:

" Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

indicates -

Dara = 24

Bhagya = 12

Soola = 37 "

I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da is not

the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard and

as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with them.

Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get the

answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India so

nor are the katapayaadi rules.

***********

I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They are

the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one of

them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana and

you will find the name.

***********

The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini available.

More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had some

reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have many

commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my friends

who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and most

of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4 have

been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to possess

some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in vain

till now.

************

Oh, is that so?

************

Do that.

***********

I do not to your views about how argalas are to be viewed.

Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in the

document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file. Will

you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

***********

I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking about

the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in earlier

mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments of

all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I am

sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> ==>

> > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> <==

> This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based on

> some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> ==>

> > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation

> > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2

> > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> <==

> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th; Soola

> is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys Argala

> yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka speaks

> about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further scrutiny

> of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> in 4-2-11 respectively "

> The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common thread.

>

> Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same) Vararuchi

> is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD. There

> is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use even

> at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the ancient

> past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in use

> at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota Sankhya

> system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> indicates -

> Dara = 24

> Bhagya = 12

> Soola = 37

> How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini sutra,

> it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good. In

> that case 2 possiblities exists-

> * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet to

> read or study the complete text.

>

> ==>

> > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas

> > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> <==

> Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc - but

> yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called Sanadan

> who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> lasting " i think.

>

> ==>

> > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of

> > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

> large.

> <==

> Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

>

> ==>

> > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> <==

> ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> only. When I complete studying though the book - many new revelations

> and insights may come to me..

> ==>

> > I mean why should he ignore

> > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > Parashara's teaching.

> <==

> Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point, while

> continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with supporting or

> opposing evidance later.

> ==>

> > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

> > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > houses and not from the houses.

> <==

> Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by planets

> in various houses, then the results told should also be attributed to

> the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

>

> ==>

> > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> <==

> If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> sreesog <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

>

> Love and Hugs,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> Jaimini was

> > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> Jaimini was

> > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the logic

> of

> > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as advanced by

> you

> > becomes even more tenuous.

> >

> > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> keep

> > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> discussions.

> > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> you

> > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted therein to

> > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from the

> 4th

> > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> then we

> > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> Most of

> > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11 houses

> and

> > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw some

> light

> > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> >

> > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> appeared in

> > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that his

> being

> > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> gave

> > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> Shaunaka

> > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> Jyotish,

> > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in the

> mail

> > received by you?

> >

> > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> many

> > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> commentators of

> > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> reference

> > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> written?

> > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood at

> large.

> >

> > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This is

> the

> > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> you may

> > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th sutra

> of

> > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> >

> > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so that

> is

> > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> ignore

> > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > Parashara's teaching.

> >

> > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> BPHS

> > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire document.

> I

> > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> the

> > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my comments

> on

> > them tomorrow.

> >

> > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a bhava.

> The

> > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the houses

> and

> > not from the houses.

> >

> > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated by

> > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> >

> > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > ==>

> > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > <==

> > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name of

> Vyasa

> > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

> house

> > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > <==

> > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> have

> > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that pdf

> for sure?!

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> incorrect.

> > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> Pravartakas,....

> > > <==

> > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> post

> > > it in the next mail.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > till date.

> > > <==

> > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you pelase

> > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> contains

> > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > <==

> > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> please?

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has given

> rasi

> > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > <==

> > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can you

> say

> > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!! One

> should

> > > think twise before stating so!

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > <==

> > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf itself,

> the

> > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the same.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

> the

> > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> been

> > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > <==

> > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is clear

> that

> > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a rasi

> > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> drawn

> > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> drishtis

> > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> Taurus in

> > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > <==

> > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me as

> > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> from

> > > the same.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust of

> the same

> > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and therefore he

> wanted

> > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> support

> > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the 4th

> house

> > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement that

> name of

> > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> incorrect.

> > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18 Pravartakas,

> though

> > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was elaborating

> on what

> > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini would

> have

> > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> telling

> > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer to

> other

> > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic concepts of

> > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> through whose

> > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> Jyotish

> > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not named

> amongst

> > > > Pravartakas.

> > > >

> > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> commenting on

> > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> venerated

> > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras, nor

> > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > >

> > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> appearing in

> > > BPHS

> > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore it

> is based

> > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> first

> > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha Karikas

> that

> > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> that

> > > though

> > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or any

> thing

> > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> found in

> > > that

> > > > text.

> > > >

> > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || " from

> Vriddha

> > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> referred

> > > to to

> > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on rasi

> > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you have

> > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold any

> water.

> > > >

> > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> appear in

> > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing from

> other

> > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> given in

> > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it not

> having

> > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> only 4 out

> > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > >

> > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar to

> Jaimini

> > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> argument. even

> > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary to

> explain

> > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> ignores

> > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating on

> only

> > > what

> > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari and

> > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most important

> amongst

> > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented about

> there

> > > not

> > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in Parashara,

> on the

> > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> that are

> > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> refers one

> > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally ignored

> in the

> > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their brevity

> and not

> > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere translation.

> One has

> > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in other

> > > > standard texts.

> > > >

> > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is interesting.

> can you

> > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the shloka

> and

> > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> that

> > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction of

> the

> > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving or

> casting

> > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> consideration for

> > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by way of

> > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > >

> > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> rasi chakra

> > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have aspects.

> It

> > > would

> > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra as

> described

> > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> sutras fit

> > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> have been

> > > > interesting to see this.

> > > >

> > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to create

> a PDF

> > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> conclusions drawn

> > > > there in.

> > > >

> > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> portion of

> > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> Drishti and

> > > > > Argala.

> > > > >

> > > > > Link -1

> > > > > -------

> > > > >

> > >

> Jaimini

> > >

> /Jaimini>

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> /Jaimini

> > >

> /Jaimini>>

> > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > >

> > > > > Link -2

> > > > > --------

> > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> _Beginning.pdf

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > >

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> _Beginning.pdf

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > -------------------------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

June 12, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi numbers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be counted

in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

Similarly,

Bhag-Ya = 14

Soo-La = 35

Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

==>

> Divide by variable and you get the answer.

<==

DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

* To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

* To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope; or is

there another interpretation?

Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I used to

read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail option in

all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

* By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of KaTaPaYaDi

system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a look back

is necessory at the history of this system.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think

about the

> time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to

Maitreya.

> ********

> I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

> interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned.

Even

> if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to

be

> used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably

Shoola

> with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the

11th

> bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of

advancing

> an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as

you

> say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he

says

> blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

interpretation

> of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

>

> *******************

> You wrote:

> " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> indicates -

> Dara = 24

> Bhagya = 12

> Soola = 37 "

>

> I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da

is not

> the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard

and

> as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

> reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

> popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with

them.

> Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

> alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get

the

> answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India

so

> nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> ***********

> I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They

are

> the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one

of

> them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana

and

> you will find the name.

> ***********

> The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

> there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

available.

> More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

> teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had

some

> reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have

many

> commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

> Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my

friends

> who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and

most

> of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4

have

> been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to

possess

> some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in

vain

> till now.

> ************

> Oh, is that so?

> ************

> Do that.

> ***********

> I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

viewed.

> Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in

the

> document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file.

Will

> you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> ***********

> I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking

about

> the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in

earlier

> mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments

of

> all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I

am

> sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > ==>

> > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > <==

> > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based

on

> > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > ==>

> > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

interpretation

> > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to

4, 2

> > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > <==

> > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th;

Soola

> > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys

Argala

> > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka

speaks

> > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further

scrutiny

> > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common

thread.

> >

> > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

Vararuchi

> > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD.

There

> > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use

even

> > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the

ancient

> > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in

use

> > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota

Sankhya

> > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > indicates -

> > Dara = 24

> > Bhagya = 12

> > Soola = 37

> > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini

sutra,

> > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> > don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good.

In

> > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet

to

> > read or study the complete text.

> >

> > ==>

> > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose

shishyas

> > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > <==

> > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc -

but

> > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called

Sanadan

> > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> > lasting " i think.

> >

> > ==>

> > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas

of

> > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

at

> > large.

> > <==

> > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

> >

> > ==>

> > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > <==

> > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> > portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

revelations

> > and insights may come to me..

> > ==>

> > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > Parashara's teaching.

> > <==

> > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point,

while

> > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

supporting or

> > opposing evidance later.

> > ==>

> > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

bhava.

> > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > houses and not from the houses.

> > <==

> > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by

planets

> > in various houses, then the results told should also be

attributed to

> > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> >

> > ==>

> > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

by

> > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > <==

> > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > sreesog <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> >

> > Love and Hugs,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> > Jaimini was

> > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> > Jaimini was

> > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the

logic

> > of

> > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

advanced by

> > you

> > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > >

> > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> > keep

> > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> > discussions.

> > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> > you

> > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

therein to

> > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from

the

> > 4th

> > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

6th

> > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > then we

> > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> > Most of

> > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11

houses

> > and

> > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw

some

> > light

> > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > >

> > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> > appeared in

> > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that

his

> > being

> > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> > gave

> > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> > Shaunaka

> > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> > Jyotish,

> > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in

the

> > mail

> > > received by you?

> > >

> > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > many

> > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > commentators of

> > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> > reference

> > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> > written?

> > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

at

> > large.

> > >

> > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This

is

> > the

> > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> > you may

> > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th

sutra

> > of

> > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > >

> > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so

that

> > is

> > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> > ignore

> > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > Parashara's teaching.

> > >

> > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> > BPHS

> > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire

document.

> > I

> > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> > the

> > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my

comments

> > on

> > > them tomorrow.

> > >

> > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

bhava.

> > The

> > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

houses

> > and

> > > not from the houses.

> > >

> > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

by

> > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > >

> > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > <==

> > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name

of

> > Vyasa

> > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

4th

> > house

> > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > <==

> > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> > have

> > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that

pdf

> > for sure?!

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > incorrect.

> > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > Pravartakas,....

> > > > <==

> > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> > post

> > > > it in the next mail.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > > till date.

> > > > <==

> > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you

pelase

> > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> > contains

> > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

to

> > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > <==

> > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> > please?

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has

given

> > rasi

> > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > <==

> > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can

you

> > say

> > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!!

One

> > should

> > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

interesting.

> > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > <==

> > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf

itself,

> > the

> > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the

same.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

of

> > the

> > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

or

> > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> > been

> > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > <==

> > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is

clear

> > that

> > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

rasi

> > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can

have

> > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> > drawn

> > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> > drishtis

> > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> > Taurus in

> > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > > <==

> > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me

as

> > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> > from

> > > > the same.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust

of

> > the same

> > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

therefore he

> > wanted

> > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> > support

> > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

4th

> > house

> > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement

that

> > name of

> > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > incorrect.

> > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

Pravartakas,

> > though

> > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

elaborating

> > on what

> > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini

would

> > have

> > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> > telling

> > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer

to

> > other

> > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

concepts of

> > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> > through whose

> > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> > Jyotish

> > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not

named

> > amongst

> > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> > commenting on

> > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> > venerated

> > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras,

nor

> > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > >

> > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> > appearing in

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore

it

> > is based

> > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> > first

> > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha

Karikas

> > that

> > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> > that

> > > > though

> > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or

any

> > thing

> > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> > found in

> > > > that

> > > > > text.

> > > > >

> > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

from

> > Vriddha

> > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> > referred

> > > > to to

> > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on

rasi

> > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you

have

> > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold

any

> > water.

> > > > >

> > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> > appear in

> > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing

from

> > other

> > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> > given in

> > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it

not

> > having

> > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> > only 4 out

> > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

to

> > Jaimini

> > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> > argument. even

> > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary

to

> > explain

> > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> > ignores

> > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating

on

> > only

> > > > what

> > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari

and

> > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

important

> > amongst

> > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented

about

> > there

> > > > not

> > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

Parashara,

> > on the

> > > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> > that are

> > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> > refers one

> > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally

ignored

> > in the

> > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their

brevity

> > and not

> > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

translation.

> > One has

> > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in

other

> > > > > standard texts.

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

interesting.

> > can you

> > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the

shloka

> > and

> > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> > that

> > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

of

> > the

> > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

or

> > casting

> > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > consideration for

> > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by

way of

> > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > >

> > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > rasi chakra

> > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

aspects.

> > It

> > > > would

> > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra

as

> > described

> > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> > sutras fit

> > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> > have been

> > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > >

> > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to

create

> > a PDF

> > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > conclusions drawn

> > > > > there in.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> > portion of

> > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> > Drishti and

> > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > -------

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

/>

> > Jaimini

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > /Jaimini>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > /Jaimini

> > > >

> >

> >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

>

> > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > --------

> > > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > >

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

Date:

> > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

June 12, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to point out

as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable here is the

number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

Bhagya = 14/12=2

Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by most of the

commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati. Dhaya

means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon etc. So it

being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be appropriate.

********

Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit being a

Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-law who

was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay university and

a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the Sanskrit

University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I shall

certainly write to you.

********

I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

**********

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi numbers.

> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

>

> Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be counted

> in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> Similarly,

>

> Bhag-Ya = 14

> Soo-La = 35

>

> Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> ==>

> > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> <==

>

> DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

>

> 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

>

> Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

>

> Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

>

> The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope; or is

> there another interpretation?

> Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

>

> P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I used to

> read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail option in

> all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

>

> * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of KaTaPaYaDi

> system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a look back

> is necessory at the history of this system.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think

> about the

> > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to

> Maitreya.

> > ********

> > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

> > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned.

> Even

> > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to

> be

> > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably

> Shoola

> > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the

> 11th

> > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of

> advancing

> > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as

> you

> > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he

> says

> > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> interpretation

> > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> >

> > *******************

> > You wrote:

> > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > indicates -

> > Dara = 24

> > Bhagya = 12

> > Soola = 37 "

> >

> > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da

> is not

> > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard

> and

> > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

> > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

> > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with

> them.

> > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

> > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get

> the

> > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India

> so

> > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > ***********

> > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They

> are

> > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one

> of

> > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana

> and

> > you will find the name.

> > ***********

> > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

> > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> available.

> > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

> > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had

> some

> > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have

> many

> > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

> > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my

> friends

> > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and

> most

> > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4

> have

> > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to

> possess

> > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in

> vain

> > till now.

> > ************

> > Oh, is that so?

> > ************

> > Do that.

> > ***********

> > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> viewed.

> > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in

> the

> > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file.

> Will

> > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > ***********

> > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking

> about

> > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in

> earlier

> > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments

> of

> > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I

> am

> > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > ==>

> > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > <==

> > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based

> on

> > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > ==>

> > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> interpretation

> > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to

> 4, 2

> > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > <==

> > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th;

> Soola

> > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys

> Argala

> > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka

> speaks

> > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further

> scrutiny

> > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common

> thread.

> > >

> > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> Vararuchi

> > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD.

> There

> > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use

> even

> > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the

> ancient

> > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in

> use

> > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota

> Sankhya

> > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > indicates -

> > > Dara = 24

> > > Bhagya = 12

> > > Soola = 37

> > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini

> sutra,

> > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> > > don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good.

> In

> > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet

> to

> > > read or study the complete text.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose

> shishyas

> > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > <==

> > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc -

> but

> > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called

> Sanadan

> > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> > > lasting " i think.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas

> of

> > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> at

> > > large.

> > > <==

> > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > <==

> > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> revelations

> > > and insights may come to me..

> > > ==>

> > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > <==

> > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point,

> while

> > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> supporting or

> > > opposing evidance later.

> > > ==>

> > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> bhava.

> > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > <==

> > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by

> planets

> > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> attributed to

> > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> by

> > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > <==

> > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > sreesog <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > >

> > > Love and Hugs,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> > > Jaimini was

> > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> > > Jaimini was

> > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the

> logic

> > > of

> > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> advanced by

> > > you

> > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > >

> > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> > > keep

> > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> > > discussions.

> > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> > > you

> > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> therein to

> > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from

> the

> > > 4th

> > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

> 6th

> > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > then we

> > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> > > Most of

> > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11

> houses

> > > and

> > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw

> some

> > > light

> > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > >

> > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> > > appeared in

> > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that

> his

> > > being

> > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> > > gave

> > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> > > Shaunaka

> > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> > > Jyotish,

> > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in

> the

> > > mail

> > > > received by you?

> > > >

> > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > many

> > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > commentators of

> > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> > > reference

> > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> > > written?

> > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> at

> > > large.

> > > >

> > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This

> is

> > > the

> > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> > > you may

> > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th

> sutra

> > > of

> > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > >

> > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so

> that

> > > is

> > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> > > ignore

> > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > >

> > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> > > BPHS

> > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire

> document.

> > > I

> > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> > > the

> > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my

> comments

> > > on

> > > > them tomorrow.

> > > >

> > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> bhava.

> > > The

> > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> houses

> > > and

> > > > not from the houses.

> > > >

> > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> by

> > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > >

> > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > <==

> > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name

> of

> > > Vyasa

> > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> 4th

> > > house

> > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> > > have

> > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that

> pdf

> > > for sure?!

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > incorrect.

> > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> > > post

> > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > > > till date.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you

> pelase

> > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> > > contains

> > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> to

> > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> > > please?

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has

> given

> > > rasi

> > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can

> you

> > > say

> > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!!

> One

> > > should

> > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> interesting.

> > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > <==

> > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf

> itself,

> > > the

> > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the

> same.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> of

> > > the

> > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> or

> > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> > > been

> > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is

> clear

> > > that

> > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> rasi

> > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can

> have

> > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> > > drawn

> > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> > > drishtis

> > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> > > Taurus in

> > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me

> as

> > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> > > from

> > > > > the same.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust

> of

> > > the same

> > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> therefore he

> > > wanted

> > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> > > support

> > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> 4th

> > > house

> > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement

> that

> > > name of

> > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > incorrect.

> > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> Pravartakas,

> > > though

> > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> elaborating

> > > on what

> > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini

> would

> > > have

> > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> > > telling

> > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer

> to

> > > other

> > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> concepts of

> > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> > > through whose

> > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> > > Jyotish

> > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not

> named

> > > amongst

> > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> > > commenting on

> > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> > > venerated

> > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras,

> nor

> > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> > > appearing in

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore

> it

> > > is based

> > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> > > first

> > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha

> Karikas

> > > that

> > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> > > that

> > > > > though

> > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or

> any

> > > thing

> > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> > > found in

> > > > > that

> > > > > > text.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> from

> > > Vriddha

> > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> > > referred

> > > > > to to

> > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on

> rasi

> > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you

> have

> > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold

> any

> > > water.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> > > appear in

> > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing

> from

> > > other

> > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> > > given in

> > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it

> not

> > > having

> > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> > > only 4 out

> > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> to

> > > Jaimini

> > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> > > argument. even

> > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary

> to

> > > explain

> > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> > > ignores

> > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating

> on

> > > only

> > > > > what

> > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari

> and

> > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> important

> > > amongst

> > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented

> about

> > > there

> > > > > not

> > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> Parashara,

> > > on the

> > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> > > that are

> > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> > > refers one

> > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally

> ignored

> > > in the

> > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their

> brevity

> > > and not

> > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> translation.

> > > One has

> > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in

> other

> > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> interesting.

> > > can you

> > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the

> shloka

> > > and

> > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> > > that

> > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> of

> > > the

> > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> or

> > > casting

> > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > consideration for

> > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by

> way of

> > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> aspects.

> > > It

> > > > > would

> > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra

> as

> > > described

> > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> > > sutras fit

> > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> > > have been

> > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to

> create

> > > a PDF

> > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > there in.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> > > portion of

> > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> />

> > > Jaimini

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > /Jaimini>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > /Jaimini

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

> Date:

> > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

June 13, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

Dara = 28/12 =4

Bhagya = 14/12=2

Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

<==

That was good. Thanks for clarification. But one more doubt remains -

How come you (or anybody) interpret that the KaTaPaYa numbers provided

should be divided by 12 ? How can we argue that that the sloka asks us

to divide the numbers by 12 ?

==>

> I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

<==

I am yet to receive it - but thanks in advance. Please send it in

sreesog(at)

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to point out

> as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable here is

the

> number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

> Bhagya = 14/12=2

> Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

>

> The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by most of

the

> commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati. Dhaya

> means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon etc.

So it

> being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be

appropriate.

> ********

> Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit

being a

> Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-law who

> was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay university and

> a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the Sanskrit

> University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I shall

> certainly write to you.

> ********

> I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> **********

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi numbers.

> > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

> >

> > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be counted

> > in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> > Similarly,

> >

> > Bhag-Ya = 14

> > Soo-La = 35

> >

> > Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> > mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > ==>

> > > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> > <==

> >

> > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> > The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

> >

> > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

> >

> > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

> >

> > Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> > Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> > * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

> >

> > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> > Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope; or is

> > there another interpretation?

> > Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

> >

> > P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I used to

> > read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail option in

> > all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

> >

> > * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of KaTaPaYaDi

> > system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a look back

> > is necessory at the history of this system.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think

> > about the

> > > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to

> > Maitreya.

> > > ********

> > > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

> > > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned.

> > Even

> > > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to

> > be

> > > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably

> > Shoola

> > > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the

> > 11th

> > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of

> > advancing

> > > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as

> > you

> > > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he

> > says

> > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> > interpretation

> > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> > >

> > > *******************

> > > You wrote:

> > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > indicates -

> > > Dara = 24

> > > Bhagya = 12

> > > Soola = 37 "

> > >

> > > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da

> > is not

> > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard

> > and

> > > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

> > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

> > > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with

> > them.

> > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

> > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get

> > the

> > > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India

> > so

> > > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > > ***********

> > > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They

> > are

> > > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one

> > of

> > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana

> > and

> > > you will find the name.

> > > ***********

> > > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

> > > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> > available.

> > > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

> > > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had

> > some

> > > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have

> > many

> > > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

> > > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my

> > friends

> > > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and

> > most

> > > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4

> > have

> > > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to

> > possess

> > > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in

> > vain

> > > till now.

> > > ************

> > > Oh, is that so?

> > > ************

> > > Do that.

> > > ***********

> > > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> > viewed.

> > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in

> > the

> > > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file.

> > Will

> > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > ***********

> > > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking

> > about

> > > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in

> > earlier

> > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments

> > of

> > > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I

> > am

> > > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > ==>

> > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > > <==

> > > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based

> > on

> > > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> > > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> > > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> > interpretation

> > > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to

> > 4, 2

> > > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > <==

> > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th;

> > Soola

> > > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys

> > Argala

> > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka

> > speaks

> > > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further

> > scrutiny

> > > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> > > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> > > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> > > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common

> > thread.

> > > >

> > > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> > > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> > Vararuchi

> > > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD.

> > There

> > > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> > > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use

> > even

> > > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the

> > ancient

> > > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in

> > use

> > > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota

> > Sankhya

> > > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > > indicates -

> > > > Dara = 24

> > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > Soola = 37

> > > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini

> > sutra,

> > > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> > > > don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good.

> > In

> > > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet

> > to

> > > > read or study the complete text.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose

> > shishyas

> > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > > <==

> > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> > > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc -

> > but

> > > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called

> > Sanadan

> > > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> > > > lasting " i think.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas

> > of

> > > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > at

> > > > large.

> > > > <==

> > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> > > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> > > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > <==

> > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> > > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> > > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> > revelations

> > > > and insights may come to me..

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > <==

> > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point,

> > while

> > > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> > supporting or

> > > > opposing evidance later.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > bhava.

> > > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > > <==

> > > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> > > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by

> > planets

> > > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> > attributed to

> > > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > > >

> > > > ==>

> > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > by

> > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > <==

> > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> > > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > > sreesog@ <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > > >

> > > > Love and Hugs,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the

> > logic

> > > > of

> > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> > advanced by

> > > > you

> > > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> > > > keep

> > > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> > > > discussions.

> > > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> > > > you

> > > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> > therein to

> > > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from

> > the

> > > > 4th

> > > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

> > 6th

> > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > then we

> > > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> > > > Most of

> > > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11

> > houses

> > > > and

> > > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw

> > some

> > > > light

> > > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > >

> > > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> > > > appeared in

> > > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that

> > his

> > > > being

> > > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> > > > gave

> > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> > > > Shaunaka

> > > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> > > > Jyotish,

> > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in

> > the

> > > > mail

> > > > > received by you?

> > > > >

> > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > many

> > > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > commentators of

> > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> > > > reference

> > > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> > > > written?

> > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > at

> > > > large.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This

> > is

> > > > the

> > > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> > > > you may

> > > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th

> > sutra

> > > > of

> > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> > > > ignore

> > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > >

> > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire

> > document.

> > > > I

> > > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> > > > the

> > > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my

> > comments

> > > > on

> > > > > them tomorrow.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > bhava.

> > > > The

> > > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > houses

> > > > and

> > > > > not from the houses.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > by

> > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > >

> > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name

> > of

> > > > Vyasa

> > > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > 4th

> > > > house

> > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> > > > have

> > > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that

> > pdf

> > > > for sure?!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> > > > post

> > > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > > > > till date.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you

> > pelase

> > > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> > > > contains

> > > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > to

> > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> > > > please?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has

> > given

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can

> > you

> > > > say

> > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!!

> > One

> > > > should

> > > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > interesting.

> > > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf

> > itself,

> > > > the

> > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the

> > same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > or

> > > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is

> > clear

> > > > that

> > > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > rasi

> > > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can

> > have

> > > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> > > > drawn

> > > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> > > > drishtis

> > > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> > > > Taurus in

> > > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me

> > as

> > > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> > > > from

> > > > > > the same.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust

> > of

> > > > the same

> > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> > therefore he

> > > > wanted

> > > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> > > > support

> > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > 4th

> > > > house

> > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement

> > that

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > Pravartakas,

> > > > though

> > > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> > elaborating

> > > > on what

> > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini

> > would

> > > > have

> > > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> > > > telling

> > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer

> > to

> > > > other

> > > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> > concepts of

> > > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> > > > through whose

> > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not

> > named

> > > > amongst

> > > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> > > > commenting on

> > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> > > > venerated

> > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras,

> > nor

> > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> > > > appearing in

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore

> > it

> > > > is based

> > > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> > > > first

> > > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha

> > Karikas

> > > > that

> > > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> > > > that

> > > > > > though

> > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or

> > any

> > > > thing

> > > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> > > > found in

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > text.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> > from

> > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> > > > referred

> > > > > > to to

> > > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on

> > rasi

> > > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you

> > have

> > > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold

> > any

> > > > water.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> > > > appear in

> > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing

> > from

> > > > other

> > > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> > > > given in

> > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it

> > not

> > > > having

> > > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> > > > only 4 out

> > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > to

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> > > > argument. even

> > > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary

> > to

> > > > explain

> > > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> > > > ignores

> > > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating

> > on

> > > > only

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari

> > and

> > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> > important

> > > > amongst

> > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented

> > about

> > > > there

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> > Parashara,

> > > > on the

> > > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> > > > that are

> > > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> > > > refers one

> > > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally

> > ignored

> > > > in the

> > > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their

> > brevity

> > > > and not

> > > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> > translation.

> > > > One has

> > > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in

> > other

> > > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > interesting.

> > > > can you

> > > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the

> > shloka

> > > > and

> > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> > > > that

> > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > or

> > > > casting

> > > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > consideration for

> > > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by

> > way of

> > > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > aspects.

> > > > It

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra

> > as

> > > > described

> > > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> > > > sutras fit

> > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> > > > have been

> > > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to

> > create

> > > > a PDF

> > > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > > there in.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> > > > portion of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> > > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> > />

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > > >

> >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> >

> > >

> > > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 13, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

That is the basic Katapayaadi principle about identifying the variable.

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> ==>

> Dara = 28/12 =4

> Bhagya = 14/12=2

> Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> <==

> That was good. Thanks for clarification. But one more doubt remains -

> How come you (or anybody) interpret that the KaTaPaYa numbers provided

> should be divided by 12 ? How can we argue that that the sloka asks us

> to divide the numbers by 12 ?

>

> ==>

> > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> <==

> I am yet to receive it - but thanks in advance. Please send it in

> sreesog(at)

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to point out

> > as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable here is

> the

> > number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

> > Bhagya = 14/12=2

> > Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> >

> > The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by most of

> the

> > commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati. Dhaya

> > means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon etc.

> So it

> > being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be

> appropriate.

> > ********

> > Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit

> being a

> > Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-law who

> > was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay university and

> > a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the Sanskrit

> > University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I shall

> > certainly write to you.

> > ********

> > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> > **********

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi numbers.

> > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> > > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> > > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> > > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> > > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

> > >

> > > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be counted

> > > in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> > > Similarly,

> > >

> > > Bhag-Ya = 14

> > > Soo-La = 35

> > >

> > > Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> > > mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > > ==>

> > > > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> > > <==

> > >

> > > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> > > The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

> > >

> > > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

> > >

> > > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> > > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

> > >

> > > Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> > > Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> > > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> > > * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

> > >

> > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> > > Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope; or is

> > > there another interpretation?

> > > Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

> > >

> > > P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I used to

> > > read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail option in

> > > all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

> > >

> > > * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of KaTaPaYaDi

> > > system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a look back

> > > is necessory at the history of this system.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you think

> > > about the

> > > > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited to

> > > Maitreya.

> > > > ********

> > > > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used for

> > > > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are mentioned.

> > > Even

> > > > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the words is to

> > > be

> > > > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and presumably

> > > Shoola

> > > > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where does the

> > > 11th

> > > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake of

> > > advancing

> > > > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so. If, as

> > > you

> > > > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas that he

> > > says

> > > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> > > interpretation

> > > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> > > >

> > > > *******************

> > > > You wrote:

> > > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > > indicates -

> > > > Dara = 24

> > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > Soola = 37 "

> > > >

> > > > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel manner. Da

> > > is not

> > > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > > > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost standard

> > > and

> > > > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now coming to

> > > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system

> > > > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be familiar with

> > > them.

> > > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values of the

> > > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and you get

> > > the

> > > > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to South India

> > > so

> > > > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > > > ***********

> > > > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi rishis. They

> > > are

> > > > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan is one

> > > of

> > > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada Purana

> > > and

> > > > you will find the name.

> > > > ***********

> > > > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were certain that

> > > > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> > > available.

> > > > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only spreading the

> > > > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you had

> > > some

> > > > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I have

> > > many

> > > > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts from

> > > > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of my

> > > friends

> > > > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have read) and

> > > most

> > > > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which only 4

> > > have

> > > > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are said to

> > > possess

> > > > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have been in

> > > vain

> > > > till now.

> > > > ************

> > > > Oh, is that so?

> > > > ************

> > > > Do that.

> > > > ***********

> > > > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> > > viewed.

> > > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is referred to in

> > > the

> > > > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf file.

> > > Will

> > > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > ***********

> > > > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were talking

> > > about

> > > > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian chart in

> > > earlier

> > > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for comments

> > > of

> > > > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi aspects. I

> > > am

> > > > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and draftsmanship.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I believe based

> > > on

> > > > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote BPHS and

> > > > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata period, as

> > > > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and 6th

> > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > interpretation

> > > > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they refer to

> > > 4, 2

> > > > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those houses.

> > > > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara Bhagya and

> > > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > > <==

> > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By common

> > > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is 9th;

> > > Soola

> > > > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses distroys

> > > Argala

> > > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of BPHS sloka

> > > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this sloka

> > > speaks

> > > > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a further

> > > scrutiny

> > > > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara " (wife) is

> > > > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by planets

> > > > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from 2nd, 6th

> > > > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the common

> > > thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in south

> > > > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> > > Vararuchi

> > > > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury AD.

> > > There

> > > > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as per my

> > > > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of the

> > > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was in use

> > > even

> > > > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of the

> > > ancient

> > > > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system was in

> > > use

> > > > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic period " Bhoota

> > > Sankhya

> > > > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above sloka

> > > > > indicates -

> > > > > Dara = 24

> > > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > > Soola = 37

> > > > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can you

> > > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in jaimini

> > > sutra,

> > > > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century AD, since

> > > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period only. I

> > > > > don't think that you would like that argument. If clear use

> > > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well and good.

> > > In

> > > > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi " system in

> > > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I am yet

> > > to

> > > > > read or study the complete text.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from whose

> > > shishyas

> > > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara acknowledges having

> > > > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the sloka? I

> > > > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka, Saunaka etc -

> > > but

> > > > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi called

> > > Sanadan

> > > > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something like " Ever

> > > > > lasting " i think.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do

> > > > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas

> > > of

> > > > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > > at

> > > > > large.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking me for

> > > > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries of Jaimini

> > > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get some clue

> > > > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for the info.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. "

> > > > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it

> > > > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a different manner

> > > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to read that

> > > > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of Jaimini sutra

> > > > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> > > revelations

> > > > > and insights may come to me..

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this point,

> > > while

> > > > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> > > supporting or

> > > > > opposing evidance later.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > > bhava.

> > > > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this confusion and

> > > > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala caused by

> > > planets

> > > > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> > > attributed to

> > > > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > > > >

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > > by

> > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > > <==

> > > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give it to

> > > > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > > > sreesog@ <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > > > >

> > > > > Love and Hugs,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said that

> > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is believed tat

> > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be shishya of

> > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so then the

> > > logic

> > > > > of

> > > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> > > advanced by

> > > > > you

> > > > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I wanted to

> > > > > keep

> > > > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of this

> > > > > discussions.

> > > > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let me assure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> > > therein to

> > > > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks that from

> > > the

> > > > > 4th

> > > > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

> > > 6th

> > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of the shloka

> > > > > then we

> > > > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi interpretation rules.

> > > > > Most of

> > > > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and 11

> > > houses

> > > > > and

> > > > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you throw

> > > some

> > > > > light

> > > > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a Pravartaka

> > > > > appeared in

> > > > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember writing that

> > > his

> > > > > being

> > > > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan rishi that

> > > > > gave

> > > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga and then

> > > > > Shaunaka

> > > > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the principles of

> > > > > Jyotish,

> > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not appear in

> > > the

> > > > > mail

> > > > > > received by you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is mentioned by

> > > > > many

> > > > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > commentators of

> > > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you have any

> > > > > reference

> > > > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini sutras were

> > > > > written?

> > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological brotherhood

> > > at

> > > > > large.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani rogaadayaH. " This

> > > is

> > > > > the

> > > > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is possible

> > > > > you may

> > > > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case of 4th

> > > sutra

> > > > > of

> > > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti? If so

> > > that

> > > > > is

> > > > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why should he

> > > > > ignore

> > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to advocate only

> > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the edition of

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the entire

> > > document.

> > > > > I

> > > > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I shall read

> > > > > the

> > > > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send my

> > > comments

> > > > > on

> > > > > > them tomorrow.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house to a

> > > bhava.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on the

> > > houses

> > > > > and

> > > > > > not from the houses.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram indicated

> > > by

> > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that format.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned the name

> > > of

> > > > > Vyasa

> > > > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > > 4th

> > > > > house

> > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states the same! I

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you read that

> > > pdf

> > > > > for sure?!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find that, please

> > > > > post

> > > > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> > > > > > > > till date.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can you

> > > pelase

> > > > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete Jaimini sutra

> > > > > contains

> > > > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > > to

> > > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide more info,

> > > > > please?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara has

> > > given

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of the intial

> > > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then how can

> > > you

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That also " totally " ?!!

> > > One

> > > > > should

> > > > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > interesting.

> > > > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> > > > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that pdf

> > > itself,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned in the

> > > same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > > or

> > > > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could only have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus it is

> > > clear

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th house.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that signs can

> > > have

> > > > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if you had

> > > > > drawn

> > > > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated how the

> > > > > drishtis

> > > > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with Aries and

> > > > > Taurus in

> > > > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see this.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to Pradeep to me

> > > as

> > > > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some new insight

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > the same.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the entire thrust

> > > of

> > > > > the same

> > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> > > therefore he

> > > > > wanted

> > > > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the sutras to

> > > > > support

> > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala to the

> > > 4th

> > > > > house

> > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The statement

> > > that

> > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is totally

> > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > Pravartakas,

> > > > > though

> > > > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> > > elaborating

> > > > > on what

> > > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case Jaimini

> > > would

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles instead of

> > > > > telling

> > > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers to refer

> > > to

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> > > concepts of

> > > > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of Jyotish and

> > > > > through whose

> > > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the knowledge of

> > > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who is not

> > > named

> > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam " as " I am

> > > > > commenting on

> > > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and even the

> > > > > venerated

> > > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini sutras,

> > > nor

> > > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some shlokas

> > > > > appearing in

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and therefore

> > > it

> > > > > is based

> > > > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be attractive, at

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many Vriddha

> > > Karikas

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also interesting to note

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their usage or

> > > any

> > > > > thing

> > > > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha drishti is

> > > > > found in

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > text.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> > > from

> > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts can be

> > > > > referred

> > > > > > > to to

> > > > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the sutras on

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one that you

> > > have

> > > > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does not hold

> > > any

> > > > > water.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi drishti

> > > > > appear in

> > > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of borrowing

> > > from

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of argalas are

> > > > > given in

> > > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from BPHS, it

> > > not

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well known that

> > > > > only 4 out

> > > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available till date.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is peculiar

> > > to

> > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept your

> > > > > argument. even

> > > > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also necessary

> > > to

> > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which Jaimini

> > > > > ignores

> > > > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was elaborating

> > > on

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped Vimshottari

> > > and

> > > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> > > important

> > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments presented

> > > about

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> > > Parashara,

> > > > > on the

> > > > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results of Argalas

> > > > > that are

> > > > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That Jaimini

> > > > > refers one

> > > > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is totally

> > > ignored

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for their

> > > brevity

> > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> > > translation.

> > > > > One has

> > > > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles given in

> > > other

> > > > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > interesting.

> > > > > can you

> > > > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in and the

> > > shloka

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be translated to mean

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause obstruction

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house receiving

> > > or

> > > > > casting

> > > > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > consideration for

> > > > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been given by

> > > way of

> > > > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked to cast a

> > > > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can have

> > > aspects.

> > > > > It

> > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the chakra

> > > as

> > > > > described

> > > > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis described in the

> > > > > sutras fit

> > > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc. It would

> > > > > have been

> > > > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts undertaken to

> > > create

> > > > > a PDF

> > > > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > > > there in.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the beginning

> > > > > portion of

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion upto Rasi

> > > > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> <Sreenadh/

> <Sreenadh/>>

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > />

> > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > > /Jaimini>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > > /Jaimini

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 14, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

No - the KaPaTaYa system ends with " ankanam vamato gati " and there

is no division by 12 involved; as is evident from the many

astronomical works available (Text bys Vararuchi, Sangama grama

Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

If you say that this division by 12 is a Jaimini extension to

KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and accept it.

But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is not part of KaPaTaYa

system.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> That is the basic Katapayaadi principle about identifying the

variable.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > ==>

> > Dara = 28/12 =4

> > Bhagya = 14/12=2

> > Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> > <==

> > That was good. Thanks for clarification. But one more doubt

remains -

> > How come you (or anybody) interpret that the KaTaPaYa numbers

provided

> > should be divided by 12 ? How can we argue that that the sloka

asks us

> > to divide the numbers by 12 ?

> >

> > ==>

> > > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> > <==

> > I am yet to receive it - but thanks in advance. Please send it in

> > sreesog(at)

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to

point out

> > > as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable

here is

> > the

> > > number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

> > > Bhagya = 14/12=2

> > > Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> > >

> > > The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by

most of

> > the

> > > commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati.

Dhaya

> > > means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon

etc.

> > So it

> > > being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be

> > appropriate.

> > > ********

> > > Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit

> > being a

> > > Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-

law who

> > > was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay

university and

> > > a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the

Sanskrit

> > > University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I

shall

> > > certainly write to you.

> > > ********

> > > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> > > **********

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi

numbers.

> > > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> > > > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> > > > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> > > > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> > > > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

> > > >

> > > > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be

counted

> > > > in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> > > > Similarly,

> > > >

> > > > Bhag-Ya = 14

> > > > Soo-La = 35

> > > >

> > > > Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> > > > mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> > > > <==

> > > >

> > > > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> > > > The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

> > > >

> > > > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

> > > >

> > > > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> > > > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

> > > >

> > > > Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> > > > Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> > > > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> > > > * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

> > > >

> > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> > > > Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope;

or is

> > > > there another interpretation?

> > > > Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

> > > >

> > > > P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I

used to

> > > > read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail

option in

> > > > all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

> > > >

> > > > * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of

KaTaPaYaDi

> > > > system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a

look back

> > > > is necessory at the history of this system.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you

think

> > > > about the

> > > > > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited

to

> > > > Maitreya.

> > > > > ********

> > > > > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used

for

> > > > > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are

mentioned.

> > > > Even

> > > > > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the

words is to

> > > > be

> > > > > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and

presumably

> > > > Shoola

> > > > > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where

does the

> > > > 11th

> > > > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake

of

> > > > advancing

> > > > > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so.

If, as

> > > > you

> > > > > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas

that he

> > > > says

> > > > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> > > > interpretation

> > > > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> > > > >

> > > > > *******************

> > > > > You wrote:

> > > > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above

sloka

> > > > > indicates -

> > > > > Dara = 24

> > > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > > Soola = 37 "

> > > > >

> > > > > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel

manner. Da

> > > > is not

> > > > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > > > > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost

standard

> > > > and

> > > > > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now

coming to

> > > > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi "

was system

> > > > > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be

familiar with

> > > > them.

> > > > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values

of the

> > > > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and

you get

> > > > the

> > > > > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to

South India

> > > > so

> > > > > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > > > > ***********

> > > > > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi

rishis. They

> > > > are

> > > > > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan

is one

> > > > of

> > > > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada

Purana

> > > > and

> > > > > you will find the name.

> > > > > ***********

> > > > > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were

certain that

> > > > > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> > > > available.

> > > > > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only

spreading the

> > > > > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you

had

> > > > some

> > > > > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I

have

> > > > many

> > > > > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts

from

> > > > > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of

my

> > > > friends

> > > > > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have

read) and

> > > > most

> > > > > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which

only 4

> > > > have

> > > > > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are

said to

> > > > possess

> > > > > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have

been in

> > > > vain

> > > > > till now.

> > > > > ************

> > > > > Oh, is that so?

> > > > > ************

> > > > > Do that.

> > > > > ***********

> > > > > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> > > > viewed.

> > > > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is

referred to in

> > > > the

> > > > > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf

file.

> > > > Will

> > > > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > ***********

> > > > > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were

talking

> > > > about

> > > > > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian

chart in

> > > > earlier

> > > > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for

comments

> > > > of

> > > > > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi

aspects. I

> > > > am

> > > > > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and

draftsmanship.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be

shishya of

> > > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I

believe based

> > > > on

> > > > > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote

BPHS and

> > > > > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata

period, as

> > > > > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

6th

> > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of

the shloka

> > > > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > interpretation

> > > > > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they

refer to

> > > > 4, 2

> > > > > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those

houses.

> > > > > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara

Bhagya and

> > > > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By

common

> > > > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is

9th;

> > > > Soola

> > > > > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses

distroys

> > > > Argala

> > > > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of

BPHS sloka

> > > > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this

sloka

> > > > speaks

> > > > > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a

further

> > > > scrutiny

> > > > > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara "

(wife) is

> > > > > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by

planets

> > > > > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > > > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from

2nd, 6th

> > > > > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the

common

> > > > thread.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in

south

> > > > > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> > > > Vararuchi

> > > > > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury

AD.

> > > > There

> > > > > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as

per my

> > > > > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of

the

> > > > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was

in use

> > > > even

> > > > > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of

the

> > > > ancient

> > > > > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system

was in

> > > > use

> > > > > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic

period " Bhoota

> > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above

sloka

> > > > > > indicates -

> > > > > > Dara = 24

> > > > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > > > Soola = 37

> > > > > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can

you

> > > > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > > > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in

jaimini

> > > > sutra,

> > > > > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century

AD, since

> > > > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period

only. I

> > > > > > don't think that you would like that argument. If

clear use

> > > > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well

and good.

> > > > In

> > > > > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > > > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi "

system in

> > > > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I

am yet

> > > > to

> > > > > > read or study the complete text.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from

whose

> > > > shishyas

> > > > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara

acknowledges having

> > > > > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the

sloka? I

> > > > > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka,

Saunaka etc -

> > > > but

> > > > > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi

called

> > > > Sanadan

> > > > > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > > > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something

like " Ever

> > > > > > lasting " i think.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is

mentioned by

> > > > > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many

other

> > > > > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me

right. Do

> > > > > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many

adhyaayas

> > > > of

> > > > > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological

brotherhood

> > > > at

> > > > > > large.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking

me for

> > > > > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries

of Jaimini

> > > > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get

some clue

> > > > > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for

the info.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani

rogaadayaH. "

> > > > > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of

course it

> > > > > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a

different manner

> > > > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to

read that

> > > > > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of

Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> > > > revelations

> > > > > > and insights may come to me..

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to

advocate only

> > > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this

point,

> > > > while

> > > > > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> > > > supporting or

> > > > > > opposing evidance later.

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house

to a

> > > > bhava.

> > > > > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas

on the

> > > > > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this

confusion and

> > > > > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala

caused by

> > > > planets

> > > > > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> > > > attributed to

> > > > > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram

indicated

> > > > by

> > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that

format.

> > > > > > <==

> > > > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give

it to

> > > > > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > > > > sreesog@ <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love and Hugs,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said

that

> > > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is

believed tat

> > > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be

shishya of

> > > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so

then the

> > > > logic

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> > > > advanced by

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I

wanted to

> > > > > > keep

> > > > > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of

this

> > > > > > discussions.

> > > > > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let

me assure

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> > > > therein to

> > > > > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks

that from

> > > > the

> > > > > > 4th

> > > > > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th

9th and

> > > > 6th

> > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of

the shloka

> > > > > > then we

> > > > > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

interpretation rules.

> > > > > > Most of

> > > > > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and

11

> > > > houses

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you

throw

> > > > some

> > > > > > light

> > > > > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and

6?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a

Pravartaka

> > > > > > appeared in

> > > > > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember

writing that

> > > > his

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan

rishi that

> > > > > > gave

> > > > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga

and then

> > > > > > Shaunaka

> > > > > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the

principles of

> > > > > > Jyotish,

> > > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not

appear in

> > > > the

> > > > > > mail

> > > > > > > received by you?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is

mentioned by

> > > > > > many

> > > > > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > > commentators of

> > > > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you

have any

> > > > > > reference

> > > > > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini

sutras were

> > > > > > written?

> > > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological

brotherhood

> > > > at

> > > > > > large.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani

rogaadayaH. " This

> > > > is

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is

possible

> > > > > > you may

> > > > > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case

of 4th

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti?

If so

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why

should he

> > > > > > ignore

> > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to

advocate only

> > > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the

edition of

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the

entire

> > > > document.

> > > > > > I

> > > > > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I

shall read

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send

my

> > > > comments

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > them tomorrow.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house

to a

> > > > bhava.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on

the

> > > > houses

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > not from the houses.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram

indicated

> > > > by

> > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that

format.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of

Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned

the name

> > > > of

> > > > > > Vyasa

> > > > > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala

to the

> > > > 4th

> > > > > > house

> > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states

the same! I

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you

read that

> > > > pdf

> > > > > > for sure?!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is

totally

> > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find

that, please

> > > > > > post

> > > > > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are

available

> > > > > > > > > till date.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can

you

> > > > pelase

> > > > > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete

Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is

peculiar

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide

more info,

> > > > > > please?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara

has

> > > > given

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of

the intial

> > > > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then

how can

> > > > you

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That

also " totally " ?!!

> > > > One

> > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > > interesting.

> > > > > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it

appears in

> > > > > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that

pdf

> > > > itself,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned

in the

> > > > same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause

obstruction

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house

receiving

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be

taken into

> > > > > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could

only have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus

it is

> > > > clear

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th

house.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked

to cast a

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that

signs can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if

you had

> > > > > > drawn

> > > > > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated

how the

> > > > > > drishtis

> > > > > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with

Aries and

> > > > > > Taurus in

> > > > > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see

this.

> > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to

Pradeep to me

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some

new insight

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > the same.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the

entire thrust

> > > > of

> > > > > > the same

> > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> > > > therefore he

> > > > > > wanted

> > > > > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the

sutras to

> > > > > > support

> > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala

to the

> > > > 4th

> > > > > > house

> > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The

statement

> > > > that

> > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is

totally

> > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > Pravartakas,

> > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> > > > elaborating

> > > > > > on what

> > > > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case

Jaimini

> > > > would

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles

instead of

> > > > > > telling

> > > > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers

to refer

> > > > to

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> > > > concepts of

> > > > > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of

Jyotish and

> > > > > > through whose

> > > > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the

knowledge of

> > > > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who

is not

> > > > named

> > > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam "

as " I am

> > > > > > commenting on

> > > > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and

even the

> > > > > > venerated

> > > > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini

sutras,

> > > > nor

> > > > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some

shlokas

> > > > > > appearing in

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and

therefore

> > > > it

> > > > > > is based

> > > > > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be

attractive, at

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many

Vriddha

> > > > Karikas

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also

interesting to note

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their

usage or

> > > > any

> > > > > > thing

> > > > > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha

drishti is

> > > > > > found in

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > text.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH

sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa

trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> > > > from

> > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts

can be

> > > > > > referred

> > > > > > > > to to

> > > > > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the

sutras on

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one

that you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does

not hold

> > > > any

> > > > > > water.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi

drishti

> > > > > > appear in

> > > > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of

borrowing

> > > > from

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of

argalas are

> > > > > > given in

> > > > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from

BPHS, it

> > > > not

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well

known that

> > > > > > only 4 out

> > > > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

till date.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is

peculiar

> > > > to

> > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept

your

> > > > > > argument. even

> > > > > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also

necessary

> > > > to

> > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which

Jaimini

> > > > > > ignores

> > > > > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was

elaborating

> > > > on

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped

Vimshottari

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> > > > important

> > > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments

presented

> > > > about

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> > > > Parashara,

> > > > > > on the

> > > > > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results

of Argalas

> > > > > > that are

> > > > > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That

Jaimini

> > > > > > refers one

> > > > > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is

totally

> > > > ignored

> > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for

their

> > > > brevity

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> > > > translation.

> > > > > > One has

> > > > > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles

given in

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > > interesting.

> > > > > > can you

> > > > > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

and the

> > > > shloka

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be

translated to mean

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause

obstruction

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house

receiving

> > > > or

> > > > > > casting

> > > > > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > consideration for

> > > > > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been

given by

> > > > way of

> > > > > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked

to cast a

> > > > > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can

have

> > > > aspects.

> > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the

chakra

> > > > as

> > > > > > described

> > > > > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis

described in the

> > > > > > sutras fit

> > > > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc.

It would

> > > > > > have been

> > > > > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts

undertaken to

> > > > create

> > > > > > a PDF

> > > > > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > > > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > > > > there in.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this

issue.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the

beginning

> > > > > > portion of

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion

upto Rasi

> > > > > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

/>

> > > >

> >

/

> >

/>>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > > />

> > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > > >

> > > > > > /Jaimini>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > > >

> > > > > > /Jaimini

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

>>

> > > >

> > > > > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

> > > >

> >

> >

http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

>>

> > > > >

> > > > > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > > > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>

> > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > > > > _Beginning.pdf>>

> > > > > > > > > > (140 KB).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 14, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

Sanskrit ankas are always read with vama gati, it is not the proprietary

right of KaTaPaYaadi system. The division by 12 does not have anything

to do with Jaimini. The division by the variable is implied when

applying the system. Plain application of the numbers will give rasis

that do not exist. What is done in such a case in astrology is divided

by the maximum numbers possible hence the division by 12.

Of course, if that is not acceptable to you then you will have to read

D-Charts as independent charts to apply Jaimini sutras. Please answer a

question I asked you long back. Interpret the Sutra " Svasthe dara " ,

using what you think is the correct way to apply KaTaPaYaaDi system to

the sutras.

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> No - the KaPaTaYa system ends with " ankanam vamato gati " and there

> is no division by 12 involved; as is evident from the many

> astronomical works available (Text bys Vararuchi, Sangama grama

> Madhava, Neelakandha etc are examples).

> If you say that this division by 12 is a Jaimini extension to

> KaPaTaYa system - i can understand and accept it.

> But for sure this " division by 12 rule " is not part of KaPaTaYa

> system.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > That is the basic Katapayaadi principle about identifying the

> variable.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > ==>

> > > Dara = 28/12 =4

> > > Bhagya = 14/12=2

> > > Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> > > <==

> > > That was good. Thanks for clarification. But one more doubt

> remains -

> > > How come you (or anybody) interpret that the KaTaPaYa numbers

> provided

> > > should be divided by 12 ? How can we argue that that the sloka

> asks us

> > > to divide the numbers by 12 ?

> > >

> > > ==>

> > > > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> > > <==

> > > I am yet to receive it - but thanks in advance. Please send it in

> > > sreesog(at)

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > That happens with all of us. I only thought it was my duty to

> point out

> > > > as this could lead to distorting of principles. The variable

> here is

> > > the

> > > > number of rasis in the zodiac, which is 12. So Dara = 28/12 =4

> > > > Bhagya = 14/12=2

> > > > Shoola = 35/12 = 11.

> > > >

> > > > The word Nidhayaatu is interpreted as give or cast argala by

> most of

> > > the

> > > > commentators including Neelkantha and Krishnaananda Saraswati.

> Dhaya

> > > > means sucking and nidhaaya means having fixed or layered upon

> etc.

> > > So it

> > > > being interpreted as obstruction/influence/argala appears to be

> > > appropriate.

> > > > ********

> > > > Not being a scholar of Sanskrit (though I understand quite a bit

> > > being a

> > > > Brahmin by birth), I shall try to ascertain from my brother-in-

> law who

> > > > was professor of Linguistics at Both Michigan and Bombay

> university and

> > > > a Sanskrit scholar himself or the Vice Chancellor of the

> Sanskrit

> > > > University here, when I meet them. On learning from them, I

> shall

> > > > certainly write to you.

> > > > ********

> > > > I am sending the diagram to your private mail id as requested.

> > > > **********

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > Sorry for the mistake I made in haste about the KaTaPaYaDi

> numbers.

> > > > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

> > > > > Ka Kha Ga Gha Ngha Ca Cha Ja Jha Nja

> > > > > Ta Tha Da Dha Na Ta Tha Da Tha Na

> > > > > Pa Pha Ba Bha Ma

> > > > > Ya Ra La Va Sa Sha Sa Ha

> > > > >

> > > > > Da - Ra = 8-2 " Sankhyanam Vamato Gati " (The numbers should be

> counted

> > > > > in reverse order); Thus it becomes 28. Thus DaRa = 28

> > > > > Similarly,

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhag-Ya = 14

> > > > > Soo-La = 35

> > > > >

> > > > > Sorry. It was not the understanding but the haste caused the

> > > > > mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > > > > ==>

> > > > > > Divide by variable and you get the answer.

> > > > > <==

> > > > >

> > > > > DaRa = 28; BhagYa=14; SooLa = 35

> > > > > The Variable (common multiple) here is 7.

> > > > >

> > > > > 28/7 = 04; 14/7 = 02 ; 35/7 = 5

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus my answers would be 4-2-5.

> > > > > What is this? 4-2-5 ?!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Am I supposed to interpret that Planets in 4-2-5 will cause

> > > > > Virodhargala? What is the trick you are using -

> > > > > * To change 4-2-5 to 4-2-11 ?

> > > > > * To change Virodhargala to Aargala?

> > > > >

> > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . " Argala

> > > > > Nidhyatu " definitely means " Destroys/Oppose Argala " i hope;

> or is

> > > > > there another interpretation?

> > > > > Thanks for the info - but please clarify.

> > > > >

> > > > > P.S: Please send the diagram to my personal mail id, as I

> used to

> > > > > read the group posts from the web (I used to select no-mail

> option in

> > > > > all groups). Thanks for the doc in advance.

> > > > >

> > > > > * By the way, can you provide me any reference to use of

> KaTaPaYaDi

> > > > > system in any other book prior to AD 4th century. I think a

> look back

> > > > > is necessory at the history of this system.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Read the shloka on Parijatamsha and let me know what you

> think

> > > > > about the

> > > > > > time Parashara lived or at least when the text was recited

> to

> > > > > Maitreya.

> > > > > > ********

> > > > > > I do not agree with that logic as Katapayaadi is to be used

> for

> > > > > > interpretation of the factors other than when grahas are

> mentioned.

> > > > > Even

> > > > > > if we accept your contention that common meaning of the

> words is to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > used and equate Dara with 7th, Bhagya with 9th and

> presumably

> > > > > Shoola

> > > > > > with 6th (though I would associate it with 11th). Where

> does the

> > > > > 11th

> > > > > > bhava enter the sutra? Equating 7th with 11th for the sake

> of

> > > > > advancing

> > > > > > an argument is fine, but is that right? I do not think so.

> If, as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > say, we have to bring in Parashara then why not the argalas

> that he

> > > > > says

> > > > > > blocks those from 2,4 and 11? I would like to know your

> > > > > interpretation

> > > > > > of the sutra " Svasthe Dara " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > *******************

> > > > > > You wrote:

> > > > > > " Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above

> sloka

> > > > > > indicates -

> > > > > > Dara = 24

> > > > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > > > Soola = 37 "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see that you are interpreting katapayaadi in a novel

> manner. Da

> > > > > is not

> > > > > > the 4th letter in Ta varga, it is the 8th one. No wonder the

> > > > > > interpretation has gone awry. Katapayaadi rules are almost

> standard

> > > > > and

> > > > > > as you insist that it is only used in south India ( Now

> coming to

> > > > > > reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi "

> was system

> > > > > > popular only in south India.), I am sure you must be

> familiar with

> > > > > them.

> > > > > > Dara is 28, Bhagya is 14 and Shoola is 35 (reversed values

> of the

> > > > > > alphabets in Katapayaadi Vargas). Divide by variable and

> you get

> > > > > the

> > > > > > answer. By the way Sanskrit language is not limited to

> South India

> > > > > so

> > > > > > nor are the katapayaadi rules.

> > > > > > ***********

> > > > > > I am sure you must be familiar with the word Sanakaadi

> rishis. They

> > > > > are

> > > > > > the ones sitting in front of Dakshinamurti-Shiva. Sanandan

> is one

> > > > > of

> > > > > > them. Read Purva Bhaga 2nd pada shiksha prakarana of Narada

> Purana

> > > > > and

> > > > > > you will find the name.

> > > > > > ***********

> > > > > > The way you asked for the reference I thought you were

> certain that

> > > > > > there are not more than x number of adhayaayas of Jaimini

> > > > > available.

> > > > > > More so as you were insisting that Jaimini was only

> spreading the

> > > > > > teaching of Parashara and so on. That is I asked you if you

> had

> > > > > some

> > > > > > reference about the number of adhyaayas from manuscripts. I

> have

> > > > > many

> > > > > > commentaries on Jaimini and some photocopies of manuscripts

> from

> > > > > > Bhandarkar research institute (kindly sent to me by one of

> my

> > > > > friends

> > > > > > who has forgotten more Jaimini than, perhaps, what I have

> read) and

> > > > > most

> > > > > > of them agree that there are 8 adhayaayas written of which

> only 4

> > > > > have

> > > > > > been discovered till date. Some Pandits of Varanasi are

> said to

> > > > > possess

> > > > > > some more manuscripts but our attempts to procure them have

> been in

> > > > > vain

> > > > > > till now.

> > > > > > ************

> > > > > > Oh, is that so?

> > > > > > ************

> > > > > > Do that.

> > > > > > ***********

> > > > > > I do not to your views about how argalas are to be

> > > > > viewed.

> > > > > > Again I read Sitaram Jha's edition of BPHS, that is

> referred to in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > document, and do not find the shloka mentioned in your pdf

> file.

> > > > > Will

> > > > > > you quote the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > ***********

> > > > > > I thought you must have drawn the diagram since you were

> talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > the description of Parashara matching the south Indian

> chart in

> > > > > earlier

> > > > > > mail. I'm attaching the diagram I have with this mail for

> comments

> > > > > of

> > > > > > all those who are perhaps interested in Jaimini and rasi

> aspects. I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > sure you will pardon my poor skills with drawing and

> draftsmanship.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > It is believed tat Jaimini was

> > > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be

> shishya of

> > > > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > This is news to me - but of not much use, because I

> believe based

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > some available evidence, that the Parashara who wrote

> BPHS and

> > > > > > > Parashara Samhita was not the Parshara of Mahabharata

> period, as

> > > > > > > mentioned in some of my previous mails.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > If we accept your translation " planets in 11th 9th and

> 6th

> > > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of

> the shloka

> > > > > > > > then we may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> > > > > interpretation

> > > > > > > > rules. Most of the commentators, rightly, think they

> refer to

> > > > > 4, 2

> > > > > > > > and 11 houses and indicating the argala cast from those

> houses.

> > > > > > > > Could you throw some light on how you equated Dara

> Bhagya and

> > > > > > > > Shoola with 11-9 and 6?

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > The sutra is " Dara Bhagya Sulastha Argala Nidhyatu " . By

> common

> > > > > > > knowledge Dara is wife and is 7th; Bhagya is luck and is

> 9th;

> > > > > Soola

> > > > > > > is suffering and is 6th. The sutra says these houses

> distroys

> > > > > Argala

> > > > > > > yoga, i.e. cause Virodhargala. Looking at the light of

> BPHS sloka

> > > > > > > stating 4-2-11 houses causing Argala we find that this

> sloka

> > > > > speaks

> > > > > > > about the combinations that obstruct the same; and a

> further

> > > > > scrutiny

> > > > > > > of the logic applied behind reveals that the word " Dara "

> (wife) is

> > > > > > > used to mean 11th house here. And thus the derivation-

> > > > > > > " Planets in 11-9-6 cause Virodhargala to Argala caused by

> planets

> > > > > > > in 4-2-11 respectively "

> > > > > > > The logic behind is 11th is 8th from 4th, 9th is 8th from

> 2nd, 6th

> > > > > > > is 8th from 11th - the pointing to 8th house being the

> common

> > > > > thread.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now comming to reference to " KaTaPaYaaDi " -

> > > > > > > I thought that " KaTaPaYaaDi " was system popular only in

> south

> > > > > > > India. (Pradeep may have something to say about the same)

> > > > > Vararuchi

> > > > > > > is thought to have introduced this system in 4th centrury

> AD.

> > > > > There

> > > > > > > is no reference to this system prior to this period, as

> per my

> > > > > > > current knowledge. Even though some refer to the use of

> the

> > > > > > > word " jaya " in Maharbharata to argue that the system was

> in use

> > > > > even

> > > > > > > at that time, neither Mahabharata nor any other text of

> the

> > > > > ancient

> > > > > > > past provides us explicit proof that, " KaTaPaYaDi " system

> was in

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > at that time. But it is clear that from vedic

> period " Bhoota

> > > > > Sankhya

> > > > > > > system " and " Decimal system " was in use.

> > > > > > > Applying KaPaTaYaDi rules, the words used in the above

> sloka

> > > > > > > indicates -

> > > > > > > Dara = 24

> > > > > > > Bhagya = 12

> > > > > > > Soola = 37

> > > > > > > How do you want to interpret it to 04 - 02 - 11 ?!!! Can

> you

> > > > > > > elaborate the " KaTaPaYaDi " rules you have in mind?

> > > > > > > Further if somebody is finding " KaTaPaYaDi " rules in

> jaimini

> > > > > sutra,

> > > > > > > it is clear that the text originated after 4th century

> AD, since

> > > > > > > the " KaTaPaYaDi " system came to existance by that period

> only. I

> > > > > > > don't think that you would like that argument. If

> clear use

> > > > > > > of " KaTaPaYaDi " is present in Jaimini Sutra, then well

> and good.

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > that case 2 possiblities exists-

> > > > > > > * Jaimini sutra is a text originated after 4th century.

> > > > > > > * " KaTaPaYaDi " system existed even prior to 4th century

> > > > > > > But I am yet to find any sutra that support " KaTaPaYaDi "

> system in

> > > > > > > Jaimini Sutra. Possibily I may or may not find some, as I

> am yet

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > read or study the complete text.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > Sanandan rishi that gave the Jyotish to Narada from

> whose

> > > > > shishyas

> > > > > > > > like Garga and then Shaunaka even Parashara

> acknowledges having

> > > > > > > > received the principles of Jyotish,

> > > > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Sanadan Rishi?! The name is new to me - can you quote the

> sloka? I

> > > > > > > am familiar with the names such as Skanda, Sanaka,

> Saunaka etc -

> > > > > but

> > > > > > > yet to see a sloka stating that there was some Rishi

> called

> > > > > Sanadan

> > > > > > > who imparted astrological knowledge to Narada.

> > > > > > > The word meaning of the word " Sanadan " is something

> like " Ever

> > > > > > > lasting " i think.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is

> mentioned by

> > > > > > > > many worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many

> other

> > > > > > > > commentators of Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me

> right. Do

> > > > > > > > you have any reference that mentions exactly how many

> adhyaayas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini sutras were written?

> > > > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological

> brotherhood

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > large.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Oh!! I am asking were it is said so, and you are asking

> me for

> > > > > > > reference!! I am yet to see or read the commentaries

> of Jaimini

> > > > > > > sutra by Suryanarain Rao or B.V. Raman. My be I may get

> some clue

> > > > > > > from them, about where to find the reference. Thanks for

> the info.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani

> rogaadayaH. "

> > > > > > > > This is the reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of

> course it

> > > > > > > > is possible you may have interpreted this in a

> different manner

> > > > > > > > as in case of 4th sutra of 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > ha ha.. It may happen, I don't know yet. I am yet to

> read that

> > > > > > > portion of the book, I have just started my study of

> Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > only. When I complete studying though the book - many new

> > > > > revelations

> > > > > > > and insights may come to me..

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > I mean why should he ignore

> > > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to

> advocate only

> > > > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Graha Drishi?! I keep a watch on this

> point,

> > > > > while

> > > > > > > continuing my study of Jaimini sutra and come back with

> > > > > supporting or

> > > > > > > opposing evidance later.

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house

> to a

> > > > > bhava.

> > > > > > > > The results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas

> on the

> > > > > > > > houses and not from the houses.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > Argalas on the houses and from the houses! Why this

> confusion and

> > > > > > > complexity?! When Parasara is speaking about Argala

> caused by

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > in various houses, then the results told should also be

> > > > > attributed to

> > > > > > > the same - right? This is normal simple logical path.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram

> indicated

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that

> format.

> > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > If I haven't drawn any diagram how am I supposed to give

> it to

> > > > > > > you? Please mail the doc you created in my mail id:

> > > > > > > sreesog@ <sreesog%40yhoo.com>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Love and Hugs,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am sorry if that was not your intention when you said

> that

> > > > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > > > trying to further teachings of Parashara. It is

> believed tat

> > > > > > > Jaimini was

> > > > > > > > student of Vyasa and some therefore believe him to be

> shishya of

> > > > > > > > Parashara who was father of Vyasa. If that is not so

> then the

> > > > > logic

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini wanting to elaborate on Parashara's teaching as

> > > > > advanced by

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > becomes even more tenuous.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have read what you translated about the the sutra. I

> wanted to

> > > > > > > keep

> > > > > > > > the translation or interpretation of the sutras out of

> this

> > > > > > > discussions.

> > > > > > > > However as you think I have not read the pdf file, let

> me assure

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > that I have and do not find any sutras of Jaimini quoted

> > > > > therein to

> > > > > > > > support your contention that 11th house argala blocks

> that from

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 4th

> > > > > > > > bhava. If we accept your translation " planets in 11th

> 9th and

> > > > > 6th

> > > > > > > > destroys argala yoga " as the right interpretation of

> the shloka

> > > > > > > then we

> > > > > > > > may, perhaps, have to redefine KaTaPaYaaDi

> interpretation rules.

> > > > > > > Most of

> > > > > > > > the commentators, rightly, think they refer to 4, 2 and

> 11

> > > > > houses

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > indicating the argala cast from those houses. Could you

> throw

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > light

> > > > > > > > on how you equated Dara Bhagya and Shoola with 11-9 and

> 6?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am sorry, if the portion about Jaimini being a

> Pravartaka

> > > > > > > appeared in

> > > > > > > > the mail. That was a slip on my part. I remember

> writing that

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > Pravartaka or not not being material as even Sanandan

> rishi that

> > > > > > > gave

> > > > > > > > the Jyotish to Narada from whose shishyas like Garga

> and then

> > > > > > > Shaunaka

> > > > > > > > even Parashara acknowledges having received the

> principles of

> > > > > > > Jyotish,

> > > > > > > > is not mentioned among the Pravartakas. Did that not

> appear in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > mail

> > > > > > > > received by you?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The fact of 8 adhyaayas of Jaimini being written is

> mentioned by

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > worthies like Suryanarain Rao, B.V. Raman and many other

> > > > > > > commentators of

> > > > > > > > Jaimini sutras, if my memory serves me right. Do you

> have any

> > > > > > > reference

> > > > > > > > that mentions exactly how many adhyaayas of Jaimini

> sutras were

> > > > > > > written?

> > > > > > > > If you have that, it might benefit the astrological

> brotherhood

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > large.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sutra: " sva triMshaMshe KaulakaanaaM phalaani

> rogaadayaH. " This

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > reference to Kaulaka in Jaimini sutras. Of course it is

> possible

> > > > > > > you may

> > > > > > > > have interpreted this in a different manner as in case

> of 4th

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > 1st chapter,1st pada.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Does my mail mention that Jaimini ignored rasi drishti?

> If so

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > the sign of my age and health catching up. I mean why

> should he

> > > > > > > ignore

> > > > > > > > the Graha drishti told by Parashara, if he was to

> advocate only

> > > > > > > > Parashara's teaching.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It was perhaps wrong of me to ask for the name of the

> edition of

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > you were quoting from, not having gone through the

> entire

> > > > > document.

> > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > > find that you are referring to Sitaram Jha edition. I

> shall read

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > relevant shloka, as translated by Sitaram Jha, and send

> my

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > them tomorrow.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not think Parashara supports Argala from 7th house

> to a

> > > > > bhava.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > results given for argalas in BPHS are about argalas on

> the

> > > > > houses

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > not from the houses.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have not responded to my request for the diagram

> indicated

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > Parashara as indicated by you. May I know why?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can send the file in .doc format as I drew it in that

> format.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments.

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > I can find that the entire thrust of the same

> > > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of

> Vyaasa....?!!!

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > From where Vyasa came in?! I haven't even mentioned

> the name

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Vyasa

> > > > > > > > > in that document! And never argued so!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > How ever the sutras to support

> > > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala

> to the

> > > > > 4th

> > > > > > > house

> > > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Oh! The first sutra of Jaimini about Argala states

> the same! I

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > elaborated on the same in detail as well. Did you

> read that

> > > > > pdf

> > > > > > > for sure?!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is

> totally

> > > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > > > > Pravartakas,....

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Where is the sloka?! In your mail I couldn't find

> that, please

> > > > > > > post

> > > > > > > > > it in the next mail.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > only 4 out of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are

> available

> > > > > > > > > > till date.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > That is new knowledge to me, Thanks for the same. Can

> you

> > > > > pelase

> > > > > > > > > elaborate, where it is mentioned that complete

> Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > 8 adhyaayas?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is

> peculiar

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini and not found in Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Kauluka?! That also is new to me. Can you provide

> more info,

> > > > > > > please?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > It is also necessary to explain as to why Parashara

> has

> > > > > given

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > drishtis which Jaimini ignores totally.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini " ignores " Rasi Drishti?! In many slokas of

> the intial

> > > > > > > > > chapter, Jaimini describes Rasi Drishti itself! Then

> how can

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > that Jaimini ignores Rasi Drishti?!! That

> also " totally " ?!!

> > > > > One

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > think twise before stating so!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > > > interesting.

> > > > > > > > > > can you give the edition of Parashari that it

> appears in

> > > > > > > > > > and the shloka and adhyaaya number?

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > The edition of BPHS I referred is mentioned in that

> pdf

> > > > > itself,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > edition of Jaimini sutra I referred is also mentioned

> in the

> > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > The shloka could also be translated to mean that

> > > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause

> obstruction

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house

> receiving

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > casting argala can not cast argala or can not be

> taken into

> > > > > > > > > > consideration for giving virodh argala. This could

> only have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > given by way of amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Argala results for 7th house is given in BPHS, thus

> it is

> > > > > clear

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Parasara supports Argala caused by planets in 7th

> house.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ==>

> > > > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked

> to cast a

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > chakra and saying that this itself proves that

> signs can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > aspects. It would have supported your arguments, if

> you had

> > > > > > > drawn

> > > > > > > > > > the chakra as described by Parashara and indicated

> how the

> > > > > > > drishtis

> > > > > > > > > > described in the sutras fit th Chakra drawn with

> Aries and

> > > > > > > Taurus in

> > > > > > > > > > east, etc. It would have been interesting to see

> this.

> > > > > > > > > <==

> > > > > > > > > Please send the diagram (pdf file) you send to

> Pradeep to me

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > well. I would be thankful. Possibly I may get some

> new insight

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > the same.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have read the pdf file. I can find that the

> entire thrust

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the same

> > > > > > > > > > is to prove that Jaimini was shishya of Vyaasa and

> > > > > therefore he

> > > > > > > wanted

> > > > > > > > > > to spread the knowledge of Parashara. How ever the

> sutras to

> > > > > > > support

> > > > > > > > > > your concept about 11th house giving virodh argala

> to the

> > > > > 4th

> > > > > > > house

> > > > > > > > > > argala etc. do not appear in your PDF file. The

> statement

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini does not appear in the 18 Pravartakas is

> totally

> > > > > > > incorrect.

> > > > > > > > > > Below is the shloka Samhita giving names of the 18

> > > > > Pravartakas,

> > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > > right, does not in any way prove that Jaimini was

> > > > > elaborating

> > > > > > > on what

> > > > > > > > > > was taught by Parashara. Had that been the case

> Jaimini

> > > > > would

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > referred the readers to Parashara's principles

> instead of

> > > > > > > telling

> > > > > > > > > > " horadaya siddhaaH " , in effect telling the readers

> to refer

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > texts (for what is not told in the sutras/ the basic

> > > > > concepts of

> > > > > > > > > > astrology). Narada one of the Pravartakas of

> Jyotish and

> > > > > > > through whose

> > > > > > > > > > lineage, even Parashara accepts having got the

> knowledge of

> > > > > > > Jyotish

> > > > > > > > > > received his knowledge through rishi Sanandan, who

> is not

> > > > > named

> > > > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > > > Pravartakas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Even the translation of " upadesham vyakhyasaam "

> as " I am

> > > > > > > commenting on

> > > > > > > > > > the advise of Jaimini " does not appear correct and

> even the

> > > > > > > venerated

> > > > > > > > > > Krishnaanand Saraswati the commentator on Jaimini

> sutras,

> > > > > nor

> > > > > > > > > > Neelakantha interprets it that way.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The logic that you have presented is that some

> shlokas

> > > > > > > appearing in

> > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > elaborate upon what is said in Jaimini sutras and

> therefore

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > is based

> > > > > > > > > > on Parashara only. The argument appears to be

> attractive, at

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > glance, but does not hold water. There are many

> Vriddha

> > > > > Karikas

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > explain the rasi drishtis and it is also

> interesting to note

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > though

> > > > > > > > > > Rasi drishti appear in BPHS, not much about their

> usage or

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > thing

> > > > > > > > > > that distinguishes their use from that of Graha

> drishti is

> > > > > > > found in

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > text.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " ubhayaanubhayaH pashyeccaraan sthaasnuH

> sthiraaMshcaraH |

> > > > > > > > > > samIpasaMsthitaM raashiM tyktwaa

> trIMstrInyathaakramam || "

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > Karikas and many other shlokas in many other texts

> can be

> > > > > > > referred

> > > > > > > > > to to

> > > > > > > > > > understand the sutra of Jaimini to understand the

> sutras on

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > drishti. I have many other shlokas besides the one

> that you

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > indicated in the document. So that argument does

> not hold

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > water.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > One could also say that the Jaimini concept of rasi

> drishti

> > > > > > > appear in

> > > > > > > > > > BPHS, if mere parallel shlokas means the test of

> borrowing

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > granthas. The argument that since the effects of

> argalas are

> > > > > > > given in

> > > > > > > > > > BPHS means that Jaimini borrowed the concept from

> BPHS, it

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > the info on that part is misleading as it is well

> known that

> > > > > > > only 4 out

> > > > > > > > > > of 8 adhayaayas of Jaimini sutras are available

> till date.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Some concept like Kauluka or application of D-6 is

> peculiar

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > and not found in Parashara. If one were to accept

> your

> > > > > > > argument. even

> > > > > > > > > > this concept should have been in BPHS. It is also

> necessary

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > as to why Parashara has given rasi drishtis which

> Jaimini

> > > > > > > ignores

> > > > > > > > > > totally. Surely, he would not do that if he was

> elaborating

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara said. He would also not have skipped

> Vimshottari

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > kalachakra dasha which Parashara opines are the most

> > > > > important

> > > > > > > amongst

> > > > > > > > > > dashas, in his sutras. Most of other arguments

> presented

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > being argala yogas in Jaimini and they appearing in

> > > > > Parashara,

> > > > > > > on the

> > > > > > > > > > face of it are good though there are only results

> of Argalas

> > > > > > > that are

> > > > > > > > > > given in BPHS and not argala yogas as claimed. That

> Jaimini

> > > > > > > refers one

> > > > > > > > > > to standard texts in the first chapter, only is

> totally

> > > > > ignored

> > > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > > > argument presented. Sutras are rightly known for

> their

> > > > > brevity

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > even the brahma sutras can be interpreted by mere

> > > > > translation.

> > > > > > > One has

> > > > > > > > > > to interpret them taking help of basic principles

> given in

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > standard texts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The shloka bout 7th Bhava argala given by you is

> > > > > interesting.

> > > > > > > can you

> > > > > > > > > > give the edition of Parashari that it appears in

> and the

> > > > > shloka

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > adhyaaya number? The shloka could also be

> translated to mean

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > neither a weak argala not planets in 7th cause

> obstruction

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > argala, indicating that 7th house, from the house

> receiving

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > casting

> > > > > > > > > > argala can not cast argala or can not be taken into

> > > > > > > consideration for

> > > > > > > > > > giving virodh argala. This could only have been

> given by

> > > > > way of

> > > > > > > > > > amplifying the concept of argalas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I find you describing the way Parashara has asked

> to cast a

> > > > > > > rasi chakra

> > > > > > > > > > and saying that this itself proves that signs can

> have

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > have supported your arguments, if you had drawn the

> chakra

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > described

> > > > > > > > > > by Parashara and indicated how the drishtis

> described in the

> > > > > > > sutras fit

> > > > > > > > > > th Chakra drawn with Aries and Taurus in east, etc.

> It would

> > > > > > > have been

> > > > > > > > > > interesting to see this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So while congratulating you on the efforts

> undertaken to

> > > > > create

> > > > > > > a PDF

> > > > > > > > > > document on Jaimini sutras, I must disagree with the

> > > > > > > conclusions drawn

> > > > > > > > > > there in.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As I said earlier, let us agree to disagree on this

> issue.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > The following document is a commentary for the

> beginning

> > > > > > > portion of

> > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini sutra. Currently it covers the portion

> upto Rasi

> > > > > > > Drishti and

> > > > > > > > > > > Argala.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Link -1

> > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> />

> > > > >

> > >

> /

> > >

> />>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > > />

> > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > /Jaimini>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > /Jaimini

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> >

> > > > >

> > >

>

> > >

> http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> >>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > /Jaimini>>

> > > > > > > > > > > Sutra - Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Link -2

> > > > > > > > > > > --------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > _Beginning.pdf>

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > _Beginning.pdf

> > > > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->>>

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> > > > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-